The statement is deceptively simple. Yet I think it best underscores all that we fight for here, and what we hope those who claim to be toiling for the same cause will measure themselves against.

I was privileged to spend last weekend with a dozen or so Election Integrity advocates and heroes of mine in Palo Alto, CA, at the Creekside Inn. Those in attendance had experience in election administration, data analysis, media watchdogging, voting rights activism, voter advocacy, computer programming and security, boots-on-the-ground oversight, election auditing, and even voting system vendor perspective. We stayed, after viewing the near-final cut of Dorothy Fadiman's soon-to-be-released Stealing America: Vote by Vote on Thursday night, to chat, strategize, and otherwise spend some time in person with a few of the folks we so often spend only virtual time with.

The declaration was created as several of us determined it would be helpful to define the cause as specifically and directly as possible. Once it was finalized, I signed it first, in large letters, as the Hancock legend goes, "so that King George can read it without his glasses."

My hope is that anyone --- any person or organization, or even candidate for office, claiming to be in the fight for clean, fair, honest, accurate democracy --- would both commit to this simply stated mission, and then measure his or her efforts against it.

Will People for the American Way, Common Cause, Verified Voting, and Rep. Rush Holt sign on to the mission stated above? If so, does advocating for touch-screen voting systems with so-called "paper trails" encourage citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy? Does vote-by-mail?

Will our current crop of Presidential candidates, D and R and anything else, pledge to support the mission inherent in the Creekside Declaration? If so, will they then stand up for a paper ballot --- one that is actually counted --- for every vote cast in America?

The BRAD BLOG pledges to adhere, and fight for, the values contained in the Creekside Declaration. Will your Election Integrity group do so? I hope you will ask them, and yourselves. And if so, I hope you'll state as much publicly, and will then proceed to test all that you do, and fight for, and stand for, against the simple, yet monumentally important, ideas in that declaration.

Tribune Media Columnist Bob Koehler, who joined us over the weekend, is one of the few voices within the corporate mainstream media who seem to truly understand what's at stake, the price it may take to ensure it, and the cost of not doing so. He has more in his column this week, on both the weekend, the declaration, and the ideals that I believe we are all duty-bound, as Americans --- and even as World Citizens --- to pledge to fight for.

His column begins this way:

The ground feels a little soft, but we’re going to stand it.

Premise one: Having a fair election — all votes counted, all who are eligible and want to vote allowed to vote — is far, far more important, even in 2008, than who wins.

Premise two: Fair elections are not a given. They never have been, but things are worse now than ever before because of a perfect storm, you might say, of factors that have converged in the new millennium: officialdom’s seduction by unsafe, high-tech voting systems; the seizure of power by a party of ruthless true believers who feel entitled to rule and will do anything to win; a polite, confused opposition party that won’t make a stink about raw injustice; and an arrogantly complacent media embedded in the political and economic status quo.

Prices now slashed in The BRAD BLOG's Fund Drive! Please support our continuing coverage of your election system, as found nowhere else. Click here for a number of cool new collector's edition Premium products now available starting at just $5!

Along these lines, I believe Instant Runoff Voting will aid in encouraging citizen ownership by eliminating the spoiler factor and giving citizens a broader choice (more freedom) in whom they vote for. It will also reduce having worst candidates win elections.

I wonder what the implications of this mission statement might have on the electoral college system, in addition to electronic voting, election fraud, etc.

And does IRV offer/allow for the transparency required for a successful democracy? Or, would it require still more less-than-transparent voting technology to make such a scheme workable?

My concern remains that we have a difficult enough time adding 1 + 1 + 1, and have determined, somehow, that computer systems akin to those needed to get to the moon are someone needed for that. It seems to me that until we can get that right, even more complicated and/or un-transparent technology is needed to pull off IRV (never mind the problems that can occur with the gaming of such systems, which would make something like Approval Voting more palatable, less game-able, requiring of nothing more complicated technically than we already employ, and yet achieve the same ends that IRV is meant to accomplish.)

is pretty much exactly what I have been saying to everyone about everything for quite some time.

It still freaks people out, but I keep saying it. Nothing will change until we stake our lives on it. There is utterly no way around that, and it appalls me just how few don't try to wiggle out of it in their heads, in exchanges with others, on whatever bit of perfidy is subject. I loved Koehler's piece, but he's speaking as if all is not lost already, as though there is something to preserve. It's more accurately described now as something we must gain at all costs.

I believe the following voting system proposal meets the Creekside Declaration. Let me know what you think.

Vote By Mail Plan

In an ideal democracy, citizens are responsible for voting and then assuring their vote is recorded and counted correctly. In order to create and sustain such a democracy, the system of voting must be transparent to its citizens. An outline of such a system follows.

This proposed system allows voters to vote in the convenience and privacy of their home and to verify that their vote was received and recorded correctly. Additionally, it allows individual citizens, community groups, and political parties to verify that only legally registered voters in each precinct vote and have their vote counted. Everybody can be an auditor. Finally, this system may reduce the cost of holding an election by seventy-five percent. This proposal is for all Americans to VOTE BY MAIL.

Details of this system are:

1. Paper ballots would be created and distributed in much the same manner as our current Absentee Ballots. The following control information must be included on each ballot: a) a unique ballot number, and b) a randomly generated verification number would be printed on the back of each ballot (this prevents others from creating “copies” of ballots and using them to challenge votes.). Additionally the local precinct number must be included on the return envelope along with the voters name, address and signature. Ballots would be mailed to all registered voters at least one month before each “Election Day”. Voters, for whatever reason, may request that their ballot package be held at the Supervisor of Elections office so that they can pick it up personally or vote (just like absentee ballots are voted) at the SOE office.
2. When the Supervisor of Elections receives the sealed ballot, the unopened ballot envelope would be scanned and the voters name, address and precinct would be placed in an on-line “Voted” database available to all citizens in a read-only format. The sealed ballot would then be filed by name and precinct, in a secured location.
3. A Vote Count day would be established – the day after the final “Election Day”.
4. On Vote Count Day, the sealed ballots would be opened and counted by an optical scanner and totals would be maintained by precinct as they are now. All ballots for a precinct would be removed from their envelopes in a manner that conceals and protects the name and address of each voter. This precinct batch of ballots would then be run through the optical scanner and counted. This vote count would be open to the public.
5. These votes would then be placed in a “Counted Ballots” on-line database by precinct and ballot number and the paper ballots would be filed in the same order in a secure location. Again, this database would be available to all citizens in a read-only format.

This system protects the privacy of every voters vote and provides the opportunity for all citizens to verify:
• Only registered voters in each precinct actually voted in the precinct. Any citizen can challenge voters and the Supervisor of Elections must be able to overcome the challenge and prove the voter is a legally registered voter in that precinct.
• Voters can verify that their vote was recorded correctly. This can be done directly on-line or by phone to the Supervisor of Elections office. If their vote is recorded incorrectly, they can show proof of their actual vote with a copy of the ballot and the ballot verification number. Obviously, this requires exposure of their “secret” ballot (to the Election Board only).

At least one month must be allowed to challenge voters, vote recording and vote counts. The election cannot be certified until all challenges are resolved.

This system eliminates the need for actual voting precincts and all their associated costs and controversy. No more turned away voters, long lines, faulty equipment and corrupt ballot handling. According to Oregon, their Vote By Mail system saves 75% of their election costs. Currently, Oregon is the only State to use a Vote By Mail System.

This voting system is transparent and allows all citizens and citizen groups to verify that all voters are legally registered and that all votes are recorded and counted correctly. This is the responsibility of citizens in a Democratic society and must not be passed off to government officials, committees or elected officials.

“Ownership” is an unfortunate use of language. That term invokes proprietary meanings. Shouldn’t we be seeking to free our elections system and democratic institutions from proprietary interests? Rather than shackling it with the “ownership” of millions of citizens? I probably would have chosen control, direction, etc.

we all should be watching the SOS web sites
earlier while i was listening to brad and vicki on votersrescue i went to tx sos site
the state report shows dems early votes 1,284,009
then i scrolled to back and added the presidential senate districts early vote totals together 31 outta 31 that number was 1,259,739 so thats 24,270 votes less than reported on front page of report
they dont get the numbers to match from the front of the report to the back of report so how r we suppose to trust the "boxes"
btw great show brad ...rock on

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for testing them against the Creekside Declaration.

While there are some good thoughts, and motivations behind your proposed scheme, I see a number of problems with the plan.

The biggest issue is that Vote by Mail is NOT transparent. When the ballot is dropped into the mailbox, it's "gone" essentially, and may or may not make it through the post office and may or may not be counted if it arrives at the election office.

What if it doesn't? Then what?

Once it's there, it's counted by op-scanners in secret which may or may not be accurate. As well, there are privacy concerns, and vote-buying/selling concerns with VBM. Your scheme, as described, would allow me to sell my vote when I log on and prove to the "buyer" that I've voted as they wished.

I realize that's a prob w/ all absentee voting, and it's one of the reasons I believe the move towards VBM in so many places is a dangerous one.

I've been meaning (for the longest time) to do an article called "What's Wrong with Vote-by-Mail?" in order to detail some of these concerns.

Yes, I realize that Oregon does it with some success, though EI folks in the state tell me the success of the program has more to do with the good procedural oversight of SoS Bradbury. They are concerned what would come of the system once he leaves the job.

As said, I think the move to VBM across the country is a very dangerous one, for some of those reasons as described and no, I don't personally believe it to be a transparent system.

But that's just me, and the trick here is to ask yourselves --- everyone --- as decisions and policies are made for elections. If we had more folks thinking it through, we likely wouldn't be in the disastrous state that we've come to.

“Ownership” is an unfortunate use of language. That term invokes proprietary meanings.

That's correct. Our government is OWNED by the people. "Of the people, by the people, for the people," as some old quaint document states in no uncertain terms.

Shouldn’t we be seeking to free our elections system and democratic institutions from proprietary interests?

Not if the "proprietary interests" are the citizens. The declaration says "citizen ownership," not "corporate ownership" or "Diebold ownership", but "citizen ownership". I'm quite comfortable with that.

Rather than shackling it with the “ownership” of millions of citizens? I probably would have chosen control, direction, etc.

You'll have to take that one up with the founders. I'm standing with them on this one. Hope you'll stand with me.

The plan I proposed is TRANSPARENT. Every voter can verify that their vote was recorded and counted correctly. If their vote is "lost" or modified they will know. They can also verify other voters in their neighborhood, to assure that only legitimate voters actually vote. This is not JUST a vote-by-mail - it is fully verifiable and controlled by the voter. Please read and give me specific cases where fraud and/or mistakes can be made without the voter knowing about it.
Thanks for commenting.

In your scheme, as I understand it, voters may verify that their own vote arrived and was counted accurately (which, as mentioned, could lead to easy vote buying/selling,) but they could not assure that anybody elses votes were counted accurately, as they could with a precinct-based paper ballot system.

Eg. When voting at the precinct, I (as a random voter/citizen) can learn that 214 voters cast votes that day, I can then look at those 214 ballots to determine how they all voted, and if the precinct vote tally was correct.

In your system, while I can find out that X mail-in ballots were counted, there would be no way for me personally to know that ALL votes arrived and were counted at all, much less that they were counted accurately, unless I checked with *every* citizen to see if *they* checked their own personal vote and found it to be accurate.

There's a lot of murk inside the blackness there, requiring faith in the Voting Gods and Results Fairies at the end of the day, when I'll largely have to presume that all ballots made it to the county and were counted as cast.

The vote buying/selling issue, as mentioned, is no small problem/downside in your scheme, but the loss of 100% transparency, as described, is also far less than we need to be able to expect from our elections, in my opinion.

I have seen many proposed schemes where a *voter* can try and determine if his/her vote is counted is counted accurately. But we ALL need to be able to determine if ALL of the votes are counted accurately in order to have a fully citizen-owned and overseen election in which we can all have confidence.

Transparent participatory democracy is the only real democracy. Anything else is a sham.

In a government of, by, and for the people, the people have to govern. Trusting representatives to vote for us is like trusting somebody else to eat and sleep for us. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't --- there are some things that only we can do for ourselves and self-governance is one of them.

There are some great names on the Creekside Declaration! I'm particularly pleased to note that Ion Sancho is among them. I've followed some of his election activities and I have a great deal of respect for him.

It seems to me as though there are some big names in election integrity who are not among this gruop. I'm thinking of the Black Box Voting group in particular. Any reason for that?

Lora - The group was not convened, specifically, to craft the declaration, it just happened that way. The folks on hand were some of those who had worked/supported, in some way, Dorothy Fadiman's upcoming documentary.

We would, of course, be delighted if BBV pledged to uphold the values in the Creekside Declaration, as I suspect they would be eager to do!

I really appreciate your comments on my voting plan. As to vote buying/selling, your comments are correct, but I believe small cameras and cell phones also work and are just as easy.
All citizens can verify the total vote count on-line in my scheme and I have seen no other system were that is possible.
NO, I cannot verify that my neighbor's vote was recorded correctly - only he can do that. I believe the number of people who verify that their vote was recorded and counted correctly would be much greater than any certified audit would verify. In fact no audit could verify that my vote was recorded correctly without exposing my "secret" ballot.
I know of no other voting system that allows "me" to verify my vote, verify that my neighbor voted, and verify the actual vote count. This is voter transparency and I would be happy to support such a system.
Again, thank you for reading and commenting. I appreciate it.

This declaration goes a long way in creating a system where we know who we voted for and can verify that our vote was tabulated correctly. A great step forward. I heartily applaud your efforts.

However, is the voting process really free and fair? I am not asking if the person with the most votes wins which is what the Creekside Declaration is addressing. I am wondering about how people’s ideas, thought processes and decisions are influenced by TV, radio, newspapers, advertisements and endorsements. Because isn’t the media partial to the economic and political powers that support or control them? And aren't many people's ideas heavily influenced by those media?

In some ways I think that voting gives us the impression or perception that we can get what we want when we are really just being screwed over. Sometimes I think that the voting process keeps us believing that we participate in an open democratic process and that our resulting government is free and fair. But in our bottom-line economically controlled world maybe voting has unfortunately become largely ineffectual. It seems as if to make the voting process free and fair we must turn our attention to the economic giants that control governments, media and policies around the globe. And to do that we must come together outside of the processes that they control.

--------
A hand count also is possible under IRV and was the method used in the Cary, North Carolina pilot program in October 2007 [24](after initially counting first choices on optical scan equipment at the polls) and in most non-U.S. jurisdictions; however it is usually more time-consuming than a plurality count, and may need to occur over a number of rounds.

In Australia, a simplified count is sent to a central location on the night with the actual ballot papers transported there, securely, for the final count. In Ireland's presidential race, there are several dozen counting centers around the nation. Each center reports its totals for each candidate and receives instructions from the central office about which candidate or candidates to eliminate in the next round of counting.
...
The intention of IRV is to find one candidate acceptable to a majority of voters. It is intended as an improvement on the 'First Past the Post' (plurality) voting system. Under 'First Past the Post' the candidate with most votes (a plurality) wins, even if they do not have a majority (more than half) of votes (unless election rules require a runoff under that condition).
IRV is most suited to elections in which there can be only one winner, such as a mayor or governor.http://en.wikipedia.org/...ki/Instant-runoff_voting

--------
So, in conclusion, IRV is more complicated, but doesn't require electronic counting. I disagree with IRV advocates who want to use electronic counting. IRV better represents the will of the citizenry and furthers the goal of encouraging citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

I know of no other voting system that allows "me" to verify my vote, verify that my neighbor voted, and verify the actual vote count.

I do. It's called a piece of paper, a pen and an open, publicly counted ballot.

I know it's not rocket science, and even a little old lady could understand and oversee it, and I know that no corporation stands to make billions of dollars in marketing such a system, but it works, it's verifiable by ALL, and it's 100% transparent.

I have heard, with all due respect, of other schemes that work somewhat similarly to the one you suggest, wherein voters can try to verify *their own* vote. Maybe. (And the same vote/buying selling issues general come up with those as well).

Unfortunately, if I can't verify --- to my personal satisfaction --- that an election was held honestly, cleanly and accurately, then democracy is headed down a very dangerous and slippery slope.

We're currently on that slope. It's time to get the hell off of it, in my opinion.

In Australia, a simplified count is sent to a central location on the night with the actual ballot papers transported there, securely, for the final count.

Once back at the central location, the ballots are in a black hole. It becomes faith-based voting. If you wish to rethink the plurality voting we use now, I'd suggest focusing on a scheme which could be done transparently at the polling place, while everything is in plain site.

You added:

IRV is more complicated, but doesn't require electronic counting. I disagree with IRV advocates who want to use electronic counting. IRV better represents the will of the citizenry and furthers the goal of encouraging citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

That said, why would not Approval Voting (click to check it out if you don't what it is), which can easily be counted at the precinct by the very same methods we now use, not be better than IRV? And yet still, accomplish the same goals you mention above?

I am not advocating for Approval Voting. I'm largely agnostic here. But for those who want to find something better than the Plurality Voting we currently use, so far, it seems Approval Voting fits the bill much easier, safer and reliably than IRV or Range Voting or the other various alternatives I've seen presented out there.

If standardized tests can be tabulated without a problem, there's no reason why our elections can't too. Then with legitemate exit polls and recountable ballots, there would be a 99.99% chance for any people getting away with election fraud.

For classes on civil government, students could then learn why we legalised pen and paper ballots, and why we all have an obligation to help ensure the quality of exit polls.

The company that processes SAT tests, Pearson Educational Measurement, had at least a one percent error rate in its October 2005 test results. The company claims that the scanning errors were the result of humidity, which it says caused the test paper to expand and the scanning devices to incorrectly read the answers.

Overall, of the 495,000 students who took the October test, 4,411 were awarded lower scores than they deserved, and 600 got higher scores. As you might expect, the lawsuits are flying, since many students were adversely impacted by the incorrect test scores and did not apply to schools they preferred.

Normally I am in complete agreement with you, but here I agree with Anon. Words matter, as you well know, and the precise words chosen in our Declaration of Independence was a matter of some debate. Your claim that the phrase "of, by and for the people" connotes "ownership" is incorrect. If ownership were intended, then it would have been "government of the people" and "by" and "for" would not have been needed--for these additional words clearly imply that the government is also directed or controlled by the people, and that it exists for their benefit. "Ownership" does not always confer control, participation, direction or benefit--take for example our "public" airways--we may "own" them but we most assuredly do NOT control them nor even participate in them. And it could certainly be argued that they do not exist currently for our benefit--for that we rely on the Internet, which exists as a private service for which we each pay. We the people need to do more than own our voting system, we need also to operate and direct it ourselves to ensure that it is for the benefit of our democracy.

The thing I like about vote by mail ballots though is that when you receive it, there always seems to be a race or an initiative on the ballot that I've heard little about. Getting the ballot by mail gives me time to study the issue or candidate before voting on it.

Also you receive the ballot a couple of weeks ahead of time (4 weeks here) if you do not receive it, you have time to rectify the mistake.

Basically, it helps out the people too busy to study the issues/candidate beforehand

Plus, BVM increases voter participation due to long lines, not enough ballots and/or broken machines at the polls.

Actually, your agreement seems to agree with my belief that "ownership" is the right word here. You said:

"Ownership" does not always confer control, participation, direction or benefit--take for example our "public" airways--we may "own" them but we most assuredly do NOT control them nor even participate in them.

Unfortunately, you are correct. And that is the problem. We have given up control, and even participation, of the airwaves to the corporations who have leased them from us.

But, as with any lease, it comes with certain responsibilities to the owner of the property. You can't lease and then burn down a house or destroy a leased car (at least without having to pay for the property that you damaged, that you didn't own).

We do participate in the ownership of those airwaves, via the FCC and public oversight thereof, though the FCC has abdicated their role in that regard.

A similar thing has happened with our elections, and thus the citizens need to reassert their ownership of them, which is the mission described in the Creekside Declaration, and which I believe we should all stand by.

BTW, not agreeing with me 100% on all issues is always just fine. I encourage the conversation and debate (otherwise known as democracy).

Besides, I'll win you around to my point of view on this eventually anyway

There are many probs with VBM, and it should be avoided at all costs, unless absolutely necessary (eg. someone truly can't get to the polls on Election Day, or you are in a jurisdiction that requires you to otherwise vote on DREs)

I've been delinquent in offering a clear article on "What is Wrong with Vote-By-Mail" for a long time. Have had it on my ToDo list, but have yet to get to it. I need to. Very soon.

(Followed by a "What is Wrong with Internet Voting" article as well, I guess! Sigh...)

Anyway, we can revisit the topic when I finally get around to getting something definitive out on that, and we'll see if you still believe VBM is a good idea. Suffice to say for now: I don't. Big time.

Ray - after the optical scanner reads your VBM ballot and software sends the image, along with your sercet random number, to the website you use to verify your vote how do you know the software didn't modify your vote? It seem to me that there is nothing to prevent or detect modification after the ballot is posted and before it is is tallied.

The only thing you can verify is that the ballot was recieved and read correctly by the optical scanner. Beyond that point it is "trust us".

Did you also spell your name phonetically? It is ok if your name is monosyllabic, but King George has a tough time pronouncing those big words.
Snark!
Thanks to all involved The Creekside Declaration!
It is wonderful to see TRUE PATRIOTISM in this era when the powers that be are trying to change the meaning of the word Patriotism to mean the same as Nationalism.
Count me as a proxy signer - with my life!
Peace,
Scott

Approval Voting: It allows voters to express tolerances but not preferences.

That's why Approval Voting would be my second choice. For me, it wouldn't feel as satisfying if I couldn't specify who my first choice was. However, I recognize that it would still be an improvement over our plurality voting system.

Many criticize approval voting because they want to be able to express, for instance, that "I like Nader better than Gore" rather than just "I like Nader and Gore". But that's sort of looking at the wrong end of the telescope, so to speak. Because of inherent deficiencies in the tabulation process of ranked methods such as IRV, and because of the inherent susceptibility of virtually ALL ranked voting methods to strategic voting, approval voting gives substantially more representative outcomes than methods such as IRV.

So basically this anti-approval argument from TomR is like saying he'd rather have a less representative election result, so that he can have a more representative ballot.

I urge people looking at voting methods through the lens of such superficial criteria to look at Warren Smith's Bayesian regret figures, which show Approval Voting to be quite excellent, and vastly better than IRV.http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html

For the cost of just a bit more complexity, we can make an additional large upgrade to full Range Voting.